Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic Misconceptions


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was No Consensus/default keep. While I'm sympathetic that this has an "essay"-like feel, it is sourced, and part of series found useful by many established editors, voiced below. Xoloz 16:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Genetic Misconceptions
Short essay on how people don't understand genetics, not encyclopedic, delete--Peta 01:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep the article has a list references, several of which concern the teaching of genetics, allowing this article to pass WP:VERIFY. AfD is not intended as clean-up and rewrite request. Ideally this, along with the other scientific subject misconceptions, should be merged into a single list (however I've other rewrite/merge work underway right now, so cannot get to work on this) LinaMishima 01:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this whole family of "misconceptions" articles should be (or have been) deleted. Also, do people really think these things? Opabinia regalis 02:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * comment yes, that's why the references specifically list them as things to make sure learners understand, and that's how the article came to be. LinaMishima 02:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But they are not written in an encyclopedic tone, they are at best candidates to be moved to wikibooks.--Peta 03:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * AfD is not rewrite request land. If an article is hopelessly lacking in encyclopedic tone, then there may be grounds for AfD, but in this case it shouldn't be too hard to fix. LinaMishima 12:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, something like that. Here the tone is only slightly encyclopaedic, but it's not like it's applying for featured article status. WilyD 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is something someone might actually look up. Not paper. :) Dlohcierekim 03:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - okay, I see where the corrections to the misconceptions are coming from, they're undoubtedly in the references listed. But where do the misconceptions the author is correcting come from?  Tychocat 10:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki or Merge - decent information, but not encyclopædic. Lankiveil 12:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Reluctant keep and revisit in four weeks . I'm tempted to delete together with the other articles, including but probably not limited to Moon Illusion Misconception, Centrifugal Force Misconceptions, Photosynthesis misconceptions, Science misconceptions, and Earth Science Misconceptions: Greenhouse Effect, Global Warming and Ozone Depletion.
 * They're obviously copied from somewhere. Hopefully, it's one of the authoring editor's own works, but his/her apparent habit of registering and abandoning usernames makes it difficult to check.  I'll post a note and see if I can find out whether these are copyright violations.
 * As written, they appear to be unsourced original research. If there are sources for the statement that people have those misconceptions, the sourcing is poor enough that I can't tell which source establishes the existence of the misconception.
 * Still, it's possible that tighter citation and an explanation of their source can remedy these concerns. Can we mark them all as subject to deletion in a few weeks if these problems aren't solved?  TheronJ 13:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment After looking at the various misconception pages, it looks an awful lot like they are the product of some class project and have now been abandoned by their creators. (See User:TheronJ/misconceptions).  I recognize that RFD isn't the place to request cleanup, but given their current state and their apparent abandonment by the only people who have read the sources, is there any procedure to get them cleaned up or removed?  TheronJ 16:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Transfer to wikibooks: On reflection, I think the misconception articles belong in Wikibooks.  The initial premise of each article is that the identified misconceptions are common in science education, but the cite form doesn't let us identify the source, if any, and the editors with familiarity with the sources are gone.  To the extent that the editors were trying to write instructions for science education, that material belongs on Wikibooks.  TheronJ 13:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles aren't owned, so who their "creator" is isn't important. Deleting articles because no one is currently working on them isn't done, nor do I believe motivation exists to do so.  Cleanup and AfD are seperate entities that don't really interact - nor should they really.
 * The point I'm concerned with is, if the author is answering someone else's misconceptions of a documented and verifiable source, great, that needs to be added. However, I'm looking at the possibility the author is making up the misconceptions as he/she goes along, making all the articles POV.  Tychocat 14:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

delete all "misconception" articles not encyclopedia material. It is ratrher a tutorial. Wikibooks OK. If there is particular important misconception like Flat Earth, then a separate article OK. But a bunch examples of ignorance is not OK. Knowledge is finite, ignorance is infinite. How about a "misconception" that Abraham Lincoln was the first president or that United States is the first democracy in the world, or ... `'mikka (t) 22:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Could use some cleaning but that's not AfD's business - could stand to be expanded to reflect a more global view, but again, not AfD's business. WilyD 14:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Transfer to wikibooks with the others. This is inherently original research. Just about anything can be a "misconception," what makes some encyclopedic? Gazpacho 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's sourced, not original research. Almost nothing is inherently original research as someone else can do the research, publish it and then we can regurgitate it here. WilyD 21:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you source that from a verifiable third party as a common misconception? Then you probly can write the article.  Until then, the point is moot (or doesn't exist) WilyD 11:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WilyD. We need not document all ignorance, but Folk_physics is an example of a kind of ignorance that is known and studied. I don't yet see a reason to believe that this article isn't about a similar kind of ignorance of importance to educators and educational researchers. William Pietri 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR and POV. As far as I can tell from discussion, while the answers to the misconceptions are fine and dandy, the misconceptions being answered are apparently pulled out of the air.  There's no documentation that anyone believed any of these misconceptions prior to the article, no quoted surveys, no reports from high school teachers, no complaints from college professors.  There appears to be no scholarly basis for the article at all.  Per WilyD, cite the source.  Tychocat 11:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Per me, citations are already given (though poorly formatted) WilyD 18:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This appears to be a tutorial, and as such isn't suitable. As various editors have pointed out, there's no documentation that the misconceptions exist. Espresso Addict 16:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Or possibly write on Wikibooks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Misconceptions are often more dangerous than simple ignorance, as they usually have more consequences. It is generally hard to prove how many people have specific misconceptions without doing original research, but such is actually irrrelevant: Even if only few people would be helped - that is better than nothing. It sure beats not having the article, since having it cannot possibly do harm. The nice part about this particular article is, that misconceptions are shortly though clearly stated and the sourced thruths are given just as briefly but understandably. It's an exemple for other 'misconception' articles, which can easily and usefully be linked from other articles without cluttering the latter with data that is not needed by every reader. To my experience (and according to the popularity of books on 'misconception' matters), quite a lot of people are interested in finding out how much they have figured out correctly, or not. — SomeHuman 20 Sep2006 16:58 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.